1. The legality and correctness of the selection process adopted for admission to the Higher Speciality Courses in Tamil Nadu is under challenge in this batch of writ petitions at the instance of non-selected candidates from open category primarily on the ground that undue preference was given to the in service candidates, sacrificing the merit.

Facts in nutshell:

2. The petitioners in W.P.Nos.21156 and 21157 of 2013 made applications for Higher Speciality Courses in Surgical Gastroenterology for the year 2013-2014. The petitioner in W.P.No.20772 and 20773 of 2013 applied for D.M. (Cardiology) course. Similarly, the petitioner in W.P.No.20136 of 2013 applied for the course in D.M. (Nephrology) course. The petitioner in W.P.No.20780 of 2013 applied for Mch. Surgical Oncology Course. The petitioners who have applied under the Open Merit Category took part in the entrance examination. Thereafter they attended the counselling on 22 July 2013. The Selection Committee published the provisional merit list. However, while making selection, separate merit list for service category was not drawn and as a result, service candidates were given a march over the open category candidates. It is the grievance of the petitioners that in case service candidates were included in a separate list on the basis of their inter se merits in the entrance examination and another list for the open category candidates, the meritorious candidates would have got admission on the basis of their rank position. In short, the petitioners allege that service candidates were admitted against the 50% quota earmarked for open merit. The petitioners, therefore, wanted the selection list in respect of the respective Speciality Course to be quashed and to prepare a separate merit list for service as well as open category and to give admission to the inservice candidates only from the service merit list.

Defense:

3. The Additional Director of Medical Education-cum-Secretary, Selection Committee filed counter affidavits separately in all these writ petitions. According to the Additional Director of Medical Education, open merit list comprised both non-service and service category. The Government took a policy decision to earmark 50% seats exclusively to the service candidates and the remaining 50% to the open merit category. The prospectus issued by the Selection Committee indicates that a common merit list would be prepared in respect of service as well as non-service candidates and 50% of the seats would be reserved for the service candidates in addition to the seats secured by the service candidates by competing with others. The Additional Director further contended that clause 63 of the prospectus contained a declaration regarding knowledge about the contents of prospectus and an undertaking that the terms and conditions of the selection would not be challenged after appearing in the entrance examination. It was further contended that the selection was made strictly in accordance with the prospectus issued by the Government and as such no interference is called for.

4. The fifth respondent in W.P.No.21556 of 2013 and the sixth respondent in W.P.No.20780 of 2013 filed separate counter affidavits. The selected candidates contended that the petitioners are under a total misconception that open category is a reserved list for private/non-service candidates. According to the selected candidates, open category is open to all the candidates. Even the service candidates completed along with others and on account of their merit position, they were given admission. Since 50% of the total seats were reserved for service candidates, the selection of service candidates on account of their own merit cannot be taken into account. They have also contended that the writ petitions at the instance of non-selected candidates are not maintainable after taking part in the selection process.

Submissions:

5. Mrs. P. Bagyalakshmi, learned counsel for the petitioners in W.P.Nos.2